Michael Shermer writes in his book, The Believing Brain , that the popular notion that smart people are less prone to believing "Weird Things" than dumb people, is a myth. He says:

1*...smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

At a time in America where the most valuable Principle might be Trust and the most rare place to find it might be a Politician, the America People can no longer depend upon what a Politician happens to say, but must rely more upon what a Politician has done for Principle, and balancing that along with their own reasoning and judgement.

Notice the difference? What a politician has done is not always centered in Principle. It is to be a Standard Bearer that Presidential Candidates are vying to become the nominee for their parties. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican Party and Cody Robert Judy in the Democratic Party have done more than their fair share of things to ruffle their respective Parties feathers and no can say they are quitters; though the debate is still out on whether their fights have yielded any fruits.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall no them"- Matt 7:20 encourages us to look at the display of fruits or the product and principles earned in order to balance good judgement from bad, so that a greater Trust can be understood and invested in knowing them. In the political arena it makes good sense as well. These are the reasons Politicians do what they do, and that should be balanced also with particular actions in doing them.

WELCOME to the first FIREFOX Debate between apposing Democrat and a Republican Presidential Candidates. Democrats as well as Republicans have promised to sanction their Candidates firmly if they participated in unsanctioned in-party Debates, but no one said anything about apposing party debates, which we think could be very interesting! Who says we have to wait for the General Election to watch head to head apposing political party Candidates?

In 2013, freshman U.S. Senator Ted Cruz filibustered the whole U.S. Senate for 21 hours in a 2013 failed attempt to stop Obamacare. Many of his Republican counterparts called it nothing more than grandstanding for an expected ambition for President. Then majority leader D. Sen. Reid opined that it wasn't a filibuster but really an agreement he'd made with Cruz to talk. In other words it was theatrics. Flash forward to 2015 and every Republican Presidential Candidate essentially has promised to transform, or abolish completely, Obamacare. That might be seen as a victory for Cruz even though he lost the filibuster, and can be marked a success that simply took some time. No doubt he wonders where his friends on the Presidential Republican debate stage where when he was standing up against the Affordable Health Care Act?

In 2012 Cody Robert Judy a U.S. Senate Candidate in 2004 and 2010, was running for President in the Democratic Party. Only problem with that was he was fiercely fighting his own Parties favorite incumbent Barack Obama in a principled stand for the [natural born Citizen] qualification required by the Constitution for the office of the President and Vice President. Cody had what the Courts referred to as Standing claiming harm to his person and Campaign in damages standing firmly that [natural born Citizen] meant [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents], citing case law, precedent as it could be found regarding the issue, and history of the United States in conflict with Obama's ineligibility.

So, we thought it might be kind of fun to contrast these two to see what common ground exist and what differences we could discover because in many cases Cruz contends he is the last man standing conservatively for the Constitution in his Republican party touting his support by conservatives. However, Judy claims if Cruz was so true to the Constitution he wouldn't be standing behind Obama the example of Cruz's liberalism on the qualification demands for President, infringing upon what the Democrat has called the Conservative Red Line standing firm against the odds even in the Democratic Party against Obama. So is Cruz Liberal and Judy Conservative, and are they conservative or liberal on where it counts most and for what reasons?

So is it true? Is Ted Cruz apposing Obamacare, but embracing and standing behind Obama's ineligibility to legitimize his won authenticity as a 2014 renounced [native born Canadian] with a dual citizenship from his father's Cuban citizenship also renounced for Canadian? Cruz's entire claim of legitimacy rest upon his inherited citizenship from mother's U.S. Citizenship, which she also may have renounced in a Canadian-ship as her husband renounced his Cuban-ship for Canadian-ship. Its all so confusing.

In honoring Cruz's mother's inheritance of citizenship to him, in the claim to be legit as a U.S. President, (in the exact same way of inheritance Cruz claims makes him eligible), is Cruz's father disrespected or honored - and doesn't his father's citizenship inherited count against the Office of President ? Is the native place [Canada] where Cruz was born honored or shamed in [jurisdictional law] ? These are important questions for every parent to consider and how you'd like your own children to admire you, or sweep you under the carpet and every Country to consider regarding loyalty to their law and a protection of their national defense.

So is it confusing to understand only two types of citizenship really exist [naturalization with all its variables] and [natural born citizen- with no variables]? Judy says, "Not really. The confusion is only created by those who are experts at manipulating their own belief in order to provide them their own self-serving purposes." We notice the quote which began the article by Michael Shermer-smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons. So is Cruz just more skilled at pulling the wool over your face then Judy is at fighting an incumbent who was not vetted?

Indeed of 43 Presidents all have easily qualified for the Office with the data known at the time in either being a Citizen of a State in America at the the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, (which was presumed based on no [natural born Citizens ie. born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] existing in the newly formed Union) - or [natural born Citizen]. The jurisdiction or claim of the United States of America was formalized in the U.S. Constitution. Before its inception, only States existed that would soon be joined in the newly formed United States.

In Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 concerning the requirements agreed upon by the States : "natural born Citizen or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", clearly designates two different requirements given the times and seasons of history for the newly formed Government. It is a preposterous assumption in this that the Framers meant to restate the qualification over in a redundancy rather to articulate two separate conditions mostly because two separate conditions exist and motive in promoting a new Authoritative Jurisdiction of Law to an accountable general population.

A couple of factors within the Constitution confirm this. Emphasizing an understanding is the requirement for the President to have been a Resident at least 14 years. This could not have possibly been accomplished by the Founding fathers as a prerequisite qualification, unless it was regarding the Land or settled [Independent States] that would be joining the Union. Contrasting the President's requirements yet notable because of the Federal Office qualification consideration as a whole, are the requirements for Senators and Representatives that require a time factor of 9 years a Citizen and 7 years a Citizen respectfully.

A Citizenship to the individual States was thus considered the requirement. No Residency requirement is made for those offices accept that they [Representatives and Senators] be an inhabitant in the State they intended to represent.

So, why wasn't the Residency requirement of the Presidential Qualification simply stated as time as a Citizen like it is for Representatives and Senators? Why did it not say for example and "14 years a Citizen" for the qualifications of the President?

The answer reveals a NEW NATIONAL TREASURE movie, because [Citizen] and [natural born Citizen] were two very separate constraints or qualifications. The [natural born Citizen] in born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents boasted a pure natural,with no artificial sweetener, [American heritage and American jurisdiction under U.S. Law]- very simple. It was a separation of TIME; and a creation as well as a celebration of a new culture of diversity that would extend to include the honoring both mother and father and place of birth.

That would take no less than two generations and could not possibly be accomplished by any, alien, immigrant, or national, all considered foreigners in the Office of the President. It was a national security natural barrier of any foreigner in the Office of the President. Indeed, an Alien or National - someone born with foreign allegiance by a parent or birth in a foreign land articulated in the naturalization ACT OF CONGRESS in Title X ALIENS and NATIONALS Subsection 1401 (a-h) is a legal witness to this for [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] it has never been doubted was authentically American.

The testimony of the House Judicial Committee witnesses in the year 2000 noticing the difference between first and second generation American Citizens is amazing. The clear ambiguity of first generation Americans is focused upon in a questionable sympathizing tradition of foreign cultures as completely natural and denied only in a delusional state. Loyalty to Canada be damned, U.S. Senator Cruz is a perfect example as well as his father's from Cuba of the retraction that can take place very suddenly especially in a very human perilous vulnerability considering short term gains. In deed it is noticed in Cuba that children of parents born in Cuba coming to Cuba might not have their new foreign adopted citizenships even recognized and might be subject to Military Order. It is therefore very incumbent upon the U.S. to take into consideration when thinking about this not to exclude completely other Countries Interest when it comes to a selection for our President.

Senator Cruz wants to add artificial sweeteners to the Office of President - he wants to dilute the Constitution regardless of the Legislative Histories tried and failed eight attempts since 2002 to do just that. This makes Sen. Cruz's assertion into the political Presidential Race Mr. Judy sees as a conspiracy against the Constitution valid. Sen. Cruz in his short freshman term as U.S. Senator from Texas is no slouch in constitutional law teaching (like Obama) as a Professor U.S. Supreme Court litigation and working as Texas Solicitor General, even early on memorizing the Constitution at age 13. Cruz recently opined most violent criminals are Democrats, but what kind of violence to our Constitution is he in the very act of precipitating?

If you do not consider the usurpation of the Office of the President violence against every American, with the nuclear codes in tow to make it aggravated, your determinations of criminality regarding treason need to be reevaluated. Traitors are seen in a lower class of criminal ideology according to the Standard of our Constitution to reasonably minded men and women, and they come in all classes of Citizenship for a myriad of motivations that do not involve keeping you safe and secure in your homes.

What do we call it when elected leaders simply conspire to twist and contort the law to make themselves legal for office when they plain and simply not qualified? They might call it a proposal to change the law, or a mistake if faced with charges. Sen. Cruz has proposed no alterations officially in his term as Senator to the Constitution. He simply wants, like Obama, to subvert the Law and defend the subversion by his position in an expert educated way.

Cruz's confidence like Obama's rest in the knowledge it is very difficult to procure a Candidate for President willing to take the chances in the Judicial Branch that failing to win in a Court Battle would provide in deriding press. Clearly this is an illusion of deception of the elected we consider to be smart people believing really weird things and defending them in an expert way, as Michael Shermer writes for, " non-smart reasons ".

The jeopardy of this atrocity is a much greater and much closer threat to all of us then Climate Change Obama is touting is an impending doom if not dealt with immediately. This eligibility issue happens to include the safety considerations of our national security for all Americans, 8-10 more Trillion of debt just on Obama's watch, 70,000 added debt to each of us, that we cannot deny.

The belief Christians have that God created the Heavens and the Earth has far more latitude to sting Americans for not upholding the U.S. Constitution's Supreme Law on the qualifications for President then a reduction in carbon emissions to tackle Climate Change. Our first President George Washington acknowledged Americans should always remember due to the precarious conditions of our Revolutionary War experienced which might have ended far differently with out Divine Inspirations and Revelations, the cause of Divine Intervention he held gratitude for, that caused to be established the United States of America.

Is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz a liberal in the defense of his own ambition in this Nation and is Mr. Judy a conservative in the defense of this Country who has sacrificed popularity? You must be the judge.

Stay Tuned for Part II when we consider more topics that make Judy a Conservative Democrat and Cruz a Liberal Republican as @Rickey asks Mr. Judy-

[you wanted to challenge Cruz, you should have declared as a Republican. What were you thinking when you decided to declare as a Democrat?]

1-That I care about People not being put in prison for Free Speech
2- That I’ve advocated Equal Rights to all on the privilege of Marriage long before Obama or Hillary
3-That the #waronpoor is real, long before Sanders
4- That our Civil Rights were under great jeopardy
5- That my concern and love was not predicated on a short term gain for Office
6- That our Constitution was indeed the Greatest Mercy afforded to us by the blood of our fellow Patriots and every word was worth not spilling blood that had already been spilt.
7- That I admired Jimmy Carter for not firing one shot or dropping one bomb
8-That I loved Pres JFK for the terrific Dream he let America date adventure in
9-That I loved Pres. Clinton for his reduction of so much debt (barring refunding glass Steagall
10- That America was fooled in a drug war and a Prison Empire Building System
11- That our responsibility to care for our Elderly -Disability- Veterans could easily be met with what we had also been given
12- That we didn’t have to be burdened unnecessarily by being the Police force of the World at Tax Payers expense with no compensation
13- The Americans in general want to work, but the importation of slave labor for the pockets of Corporate Elites was sacking our Unions, driving our re population quotas down, and tearing our Families ability to support a quality life apart.
14- That a woman’s choice should be defended against her being imprisoned and I did support accusations of murder as a False Witness according to Law.

So.. No takers on the Definition of Standing for Presidential Candidates and what damages the Courts may have alluded to I see. (?)

1*Dr. Conspiracy himself Keven Davidson, who I've got to be internet friends with a little bit turned us on to that quote. One of the most wonderful things about America is the tacit consent to disagree with each other and agree it doesn't have to end the world.

AGAIN...

Our Republic is at stake, and nothing short of acting now is going to change the outcome. As it stands now, America and all her Citizens is in grave danger of descending into an abyss of war where Constitutional Rights are about the last thing you will ever see again. The big question is why wouldn't you do it?
Here's a list of Governors you can easily find your State by clicking a LINK

Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.

Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.

Twitter / CodyRobertJudy

Facebook Badge

About CRJ

Cody Robert Judy born 1965 an American published author:Taking A Stand The conservative independent voice; has run for public offices including 1st District UT. U.S. Congress '02, U.S. Senate UT '04, '10 and U.S. Pres.'08 Indi write-in ,'12- D & 2016 D. Court of Law cases Judy v McCain and U.S. SUPREME Crt. Judy v. Obama 14-9396 www.codyjudy.us
Cody Robert Judy High school graduate of Box Elder High School in 1984 and graduated Utah State University in 2002 with a Bachelors in Psychology minor in Sociology significant study Political Science & Business
Artist-Cody has published 7 albums as The Cody Robert Judy Band YouTube: CodyJudy w 355 videos/ 200,000 Views.
Cody Blog 700+ and 405,000 Views. Works of art in sculpture,poetry,and drawing. His horsemanship showmanship expertise considered an art highest levels of Dressage-Grand Prix, Park,English,Western,and Reining.
Business
Cody is the current CEO of his own business USA Legacy Entrees LLC
Cody is proficient in building trade generaled his own house has entrepreneured several businesses in adult professional career.
Cody is a happy father of four children.